Ellis v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust & Ors

Ellis v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust & Ors

It is just and equitable to allow the claim against the Third Defendant to proceed because no prejudice was identified to the Third Defendant, the delay was understandable, and the prejudice to the Claimant would be profound if not allowed to proceed.

Parties
Claimant: David Ellis; First Defendant: Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust; Second Defendant: University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust; Third Defendant: Dr Swayam Iyer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Clinical Negligence / Preliminary Issue on Limitation
Outcome
Claim against the Third Defendant allowed to proceed.
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Section 33 Discretion, Equitable Extension, Prejudice Balance
Personal Injury Medical Negligence Limitation Limitation Period Section 33 Discretion Equitable Extension Prejudice Balance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Ellis

Claimant

Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust

First Defendant

University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust

Second Defendant

Dr Swayam Iyer

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Clinical Negligence / Preliminary Issue on Limitation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against the Third Defendant is statute barred under Sections 11 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether it is equitable to allow the claim to proceed under Section 33

Ratio Decidendi

It is just and equitable to allow the claim against the Third Defendant to proceed because no prejudice was identified to the Third Defendant, the delay was understandable, and the prejudice to the Claimant would be profound if not allowed to proceed.

Court Disposition

Claim against the Third Defendant allowed to proceed.

Orders

  • Parties to agree the form of an order reflecting the judgment including costs.